Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Maybe Im biased as a daemon player since before they got their own book, but I like the new changes in rules.

Daemons are such a different army in theme and scope and their otherwordly nature has always been poorly executed in game rules I really love the Nighthaunt treatment of saves are unmodifiable (and Im 99.9% it'll be for both negative and positive modifiers)

Tzeentch getting a rumoured 3+/5+ vs shooting and melee respectively is good. damnsight better than a flat 4+ against everything. Its a obvious weakness that can be exploited and plays into the "dakka the choppy, choppy the dakka" element of wargaming.

And a return to more elite daemons is welcome, seeing my bloodletters go from like 15 pts to just over half in price and losing effectiveness hurt over the years.

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Tzeentch getting a rumoured 3+/5+ vs shooting and melee respectively is good.

JFC no. GW finally learns that 3++ saves are bad and now we're going right back to an army-wide 3++?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Tzeentch getting a rumoured 3+/5+ vs shooting and melee respectively is good.

JFC no. GW finally learns that 3++ saves are bad and now we're going right back to an army-wide 3++?

By army wide you mean like 25% of an army and one that is also cripplingly weak in melee where even guardsmen stomps on their line infantry in CC, sure.

3++ can be bad on units which are both tanky and damaging, but there can always be design room made for them, and unlike a regular old storm shield 3++ these ones have an inbuilt condition where it protects drastically less.

If there is a way to balance a 3++, its one where it gives you the ability to just not have them roll it under certain circumstances.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Fire Warriors and Skitarii have been at a 4+ since their inception and have always been better equipped than standard Infantry. Utterly hilarious to think Infantry deserve to be upgraded to a 4+ to be comparable to them, but you have zero concept of balance anyway LOL

And no sense of fluff either, given the obvious difference in armor weight and coverage between the two. Guardsmen have armor much closer to what Tau pathfinders are wearing and surprise, both of them have a 5+ save.

Well if GW didn't give Tau access to four Hammerheads in an army that one shot all Greater Daemons it wouldn't be necessary. But here we are, GW thinking they're brilliant.

Then my LRBTs need a 2++++ as well, it's not fair that they can be one-shot. Or demons can deal with having their tanks one-shotted by Hammerheads just like every other faction.

OR we fix Hammerheads to not be stupid.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
OR we fix Hammerheads to not be stupid.

Or that, but either way the rules bloat with the new demon codex is stupid.

(Not that you really can fix Hammerheads other than maybe a point increase if we really want to take the last un-nerfed Tau unit away. The railgun is pretty much the minimum for what a single-shot tank killer has to be, anything less and you end up in LR Vanquisher territory where no sane person ever uses it because spamming a bunch of lascannon-type shots does more damage.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
By army wide you mean like 25% of an army and one that is also cripplingly weak in melee where even guardsmen stomps on their line infantry in CC, sure.

25% of an army is hardly accurate when a mono-faction army can take nothing but 3++ units. There's nothing forcing you to take an even split between all four factions. And no, guardsmen are not stomping on anything in melee except maybe grots.

3++ can be bad on units which are both tanky and damaging

So, any unit which isn't bottom-tier garbage? We've been over this with 3++ terminators, 3++ gold marines, 3++ knights, etc. And GW made a deliberate decision to remove 3++ saves from the game because they make "spam mid-strength shots" the only viable strategy. But apparently now, having finished taking out all of the 3++ saves GW has decided that nope, we like 3++ saves after all and need them back. The lack of consistency is infuriating.

tneva82 wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
For those talking of a D12 system, could just do as it was in 2nd edition with terminators, save on 2xD6's and add them together, with the caveat that a 1 always fails, so gets removed from the save pool. The issue comes with time to do individual saves for multi shot weapons, but you could just have paired dice in different colours.

Also, invulnerable saves should always be un modifiable, but ways less of them in the game, around 1 per faction. More invulnerable saves should be converted to AP modifiers (Reduces AP by 1, Reduces AP by 2 etc)..

Ugh no. Rolling 10 d12 is different than rolling 10 times 2d6.

But they're not going to bring in D12's... So the work around is 2xD6, at which point like I said, you want speed? Paired Dice of different colours.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:


But they're not going to bring in D12's... So the work around is 2xD6, at which point like I said, you want speed? Paired Dice of different colours.

rolling 2 dice per save has got to be the worst solution to that..

Imagine needing to roll 30 saves(60 dice) one at a time... just... no

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Then design a single shot anti-tank weapon that doesn't fall on it's face when facing an invulnerable.

A HH has 25% failure to hit, 16% failure to wound, and then 75% failure to bypass a 4++ with a CP reroll. Those odds create a situation where a HH could do absolutely nothing for an entire game - on average.

Or just accept that the one-shot tank killer is also going to be good at one-shot killing giant demon monsters. We don't need a special snowflake "NO NO NO YOUR RAILGUN CANT KILL MY DEMON ITS TOO COOL FOR THAT" rule like 10 year olds arguing about whose superhero is stronger.

PS: if single-shot weapons are so ineffective against invulnerable saves that they need to ignore them why doesn't this apply here? Why are invulnerable saves a crippling problem but better-than-invulnerable saves aren't?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
This is why I think that 40k needs to do away with high damage single shot weapons. The nature of invul saves makes them completely worthless OR they in a single roll can define a game. They should migrate these weapons to high strength with a low rate of fire but lower damage to make up for it. For example, a HH Railgun could be something like Heavy 3 S16 D3+2 or something. If all shots get through, you get big damage, but in general you are going to get maybe one hit through to do some decent damage.

That's a major loss of design space that also requires sacrificing a lot of fluff accuracy. No.

Dude where did the bad Daemons touch you? Why so much hatred towards Daemons specifically?

The only person throwing a fit like a 10 year old here is you.

We can discuss the merits and flaws of super invul saves to combat invul ignoring weapons and how stupid this arms race is but there is no reason to be so hateful towards people who play an army that is receiving some supposed buffs. An army keep in mind that is in a VERY bad position right now and unlike Guard hasn't received a single buff since 9th began while we still haven't heard much at all directly about Daemons while we know that Guard are likely the next codex.

I play Nurgle primarily with my Daemons and it feels bad that my troops are T4 1W with a 5++/5++ and 1A str4 AP0 D1. They are not resilient, they are not capable of hurting pretty much any unit. So yes, there are a lot of Daemon units that need significant buffs in order to be above garbage. A 4++ vs shooting and a 5++ against melee that can't be ignored isn't a ham fisted way to fix it but the difference is to kill that Greater Daemon you would need 2 HH's instead of one, cause the 4++ is only protecting against 50% of shots. Is that so unreasonable for units that are primarily melee only?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:


But they're not going to bring in D12's... So the work around is 2xD6, at which point like I said, you want speed? Paired Dice of different colours.

rolling 2 dice per save has got to be the worst solution to that..

Imagine needing to roll 30 saves(60 dice) one at a time... just... no

I think at that point it would just technically be a rerollable save. Roll 30 dice and reroll the ones that meet the threshold.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:


But they're not going to bring in D12's... So the work around is 2xD6, at which point like I said, you want speed? Paired Dice of different colours.

rolling 2 dice per save has got to be the worst solution to that..

Imagine needing to roll 30 saves(60 dice) one at a time... just... no

I think at that point it would just technically be a rerollable save. Roll 30 dice and reroll the ones that meet the threshold.

isnt getting a 4+ on two dice worse than needing a 4+ on one dice?

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

Dude where did the bad Daemons touch you? Why so much hatred towards Daemons specifically?

The only person throwing a fit like a 10 year old here is you.

That's how he is.He seems to have some inherent, seething hatred for some factions.
Daemons obv, Custodes which I learned a week ago... no reason to argue. Bad faith arguments WILL pop up.
Its fighting windmills. Dont feed him, eventually he'll go away. Perhaps.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


isnt getting a 4+ on two dice worse than needing a 4+ on one dice?

I guess I'm not sure what you thinking of - maybe we're talking about different things?

Either way a 4+ on 2D6 is ~10% fail where the latter is 50% fail.

If you wanted to roll 30 2D6 saves you roll 30 dice, pick up the 3+ values as successes then reroll the 2s - anything 2+ is a success then do the same with the 1s.

It gets tougher with modifiers, but faster than rolling paired dice.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


isnt getting a 4+ on two dice worse than needing a 4+ on one dice?

I guess I'm not sure what you thinking of - maybe we're talking about different things?

Either way a 4+ on 2D6 is ~10% fail where the latter is 50% fail.

If you wanted to roll 30 2D6 saves you roll 30 dice, pick up the 3+ values as successes then reroll the 2s - anything 2+ is a success then do the same with the 1s.

It gets tougher with modifiers, but faster than rolling paired dice.

what i mean is that if you need a 4+ to save then these are the sucessful values
1-3
2-2
3-1

so you can't really "fastroll" them

Right, but you know any 3s you roll will pass so you can ignore those. Then you just handle them in groups, so the 2s require a further 2+ to pass and 1s a 3+.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Right, but you know any 3s you roll will pass so you can ignore those. Then you just handle them in groups, so the 2s require a further 2+ to pass and 1s a 3+.

its still overly complex IMO

Yea, I won't disagree there.

2d6 also has a bell curve, whereas 1d12 does not.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
Dude where did the bad Daemons touch you? Why so much hatred towards Daemons specifically?

I don't hate demons. I hate stupid bloat mechanics and demons just happen to be the first instance of GW's latest stupidity. And nowhere have I said anything bad about demon players. Perhaps you should learn the difference between criticism of you as a person and criticism of the army you play?

An army keep in mind that is in a VERY bad position right now and unlike Guard hasn't received a single buff since 9th began while we still haven't heard much at all directly about Daemons while we know that Guard are likely the next codex.

That aged well.

A 4++ vs shooting and a 5++ against melee that can't be ignored isn't a ham fisted way to fix it but the difference is to kill that Greater Daemon you would need 2 HH's instead of one, cause the 4++ is only protecting against 50% of shots.

75%, not 50%, because any player with any sense is going to spend 1 CP to re-roll a failed save against a single shot weapon. And two shots into a 4++ even without a re-roll still have only a 75% chance of getting at least one through, so adding that to the chance of missing or failing to wound you need to take 3-4 railguns and expect to spend all of them to kill the target.

But you're ignoring the point here: why should your faction be the only one that gets to reliably stop railgun shots? Why does every other faction have to put up with having their big tanks/monsters killed in one shot while you "need" a special snowflake mechanic to ignore them? Why can't you settle for just having a normal 4+ invulnerable save, a save which is still better than every other faction's tanks/monsters?

CadianSgtBob wrote:
But you're ignoring the point here: why should your faction be the only one that gets to reliably stop railgun shots?

A Word Bearers MoT vehicle basically breaks the back of a HH. Just the existence of that should keep most Tau players from over investing ( although you do have to spend the CP before the outcome is known ).

I'm sure other armies will see similar rules pop in.

As it stand there's lots of defensive interaction in the rules:

All is Dust
-1D
FNP
Half damage
AoC
Transhuman
Phase limited damage
Regeneration ( Scarabs and Spawn )
Auto 6 / auto-negate

If Greater Daemons are moving to W18 then they have no means to hide and NEED something to help them survive. They don't have units with Scarab level durability to stump for Magnus.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
OR we fix Hammerheads to not be stupid.

Or that, but either way the rules bloat with the new demon codex is stupid.

(Not that you really can fix Hammerheads other than maybe a point increase if we really want to take the last un-nerfed Tau unit away. The railgun is pretty much the minimum for what a single-shot tank killer has to be, anything less and you end up in LR Vanquisher territory where no sane person ever uses it because spamming a bunch of lascannon-type shots does more damage.).

Somehow I don't think anyone would complain of tomorrow GW changed the Hammerhead Railgun to 72", Heavy 2, S14, AP -6, Dmg 3, Each time a successful wound roll is made for an attack with this weapon, the target suffers 1d3 mortal wounds in addition to any other damage.

Max Damage Potential? 3-6 Wounds with 2 to 6 Mortal Wounds for 8-12 total Wounds. Nearly half the damage 2-6 wounds ignore Invulnerable Saves with no silly unbalanced ignores invulnerable saves rule.

And it's not like massively powerful weapons need to have only one attack. The game would be better balanced if they didn't. Then we wouldn't be dealing with so many weapons being overlooked because high ROF weapons are better AT than the AT weapons.

 alextroy wrote:
Somehow I don't think anyone would complain of tomorrow GW changed the Hammerhead Railgun to 72", Heavy 2, S14, AP -6, Dmg 3, Each time a successful wound roll is made for an attack with this weapon, the target suffers 1d3 mortal wounds in addition to any other damage.

For balance of this one specific unit? Yes. You've given it a significant nerf to total damage (6+2d3 vs 9+d3) against targets with no invulnerable save on top of a significant nerf against targets that have an invulnerable save (and can still use a re-roll on it effectively).

For thematic and diversity purposes? Absolutely yes. The whole point of a railgun from a thematic point of view is that it's a single powerful shot, making it have multiple weaker shots is yet another push towards homogenizing everything into the single "mid-strength volume of fire spam" where plasma guns are the solution to everything. The more you split up the railgun's damage between multiple shots the smaller the gap in concept between the railgun and the ion cannon and that is not a good thing.

And it's not like massively powerful weapons need to have only one attack. The game would be better balanced if they didn't. Then we wouldn't be dealing with so many weapons being overlooked because high ROF weapons are better AT than the AT weapons.

You have the reasons completely backwards here. Low-ROF anti-tank weapons are ignored because they don't do enough damage to make up for their lack of ROF. Further nerfing low-ROF weapons only makes that problem worse. The railgun has the stat line it has because that's what a low-ROF weapon needs to be viable and the solution is to make similar units have similar stats.

 dadx6 wrote:
I think a better way to increase granularity would be to switch vehicle saves (and possibly more than just vehicle saves) to D12s.

I've said for a long long time that 40k would be a far better game if we move to d12's over d6's across the board. It's even easy to do, just literally double every number and switch to d12. From there granularity changes could start

valdier wrote:

 dadx6 wrote:
I think a better way to increase granularity would be to switch vehicle saves (and possibly more than just vehicle saves) to D12s.

I've said for a long long time that 40k would be a far better game if we move to d12's over d6's across the board. It's even easy to do, just literally double every number and switch to d12. From there granularity changes could start

2N-1 for target numbers, not 2N.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:


But they're not going to bring in D12's... So the work around is 2xD6, at which point like I said, you want speed? Paired Dice of different colours.

rolling 2 dice per save has got to be the worst solution to that..

Imagine needing to roll 30 saves(60 dice) one at a time... just... no

I think at that point it would just technically be a rerollable save. Roll 30 dice and reroll the ones that meet the threshold.

isnt getting a 4+ on two dice worse than needing a 4+ on one dice?

No he means if you roll 30 dice say fishing 6+ on 2d6 first remove all 6's as they pass, all 5's as 5+1 is 6. Then roll all 4's and all 1's are fails. All 3's, 1 or 2 fails.

Still slows down as you need Up to 6 mini piles for 2nd roll.

tneva82 wrote:
No he means if you roll 30 dice say fishing 6+ on 2d6 first remove all 6's as they pass, all 5's as 5+1 is 6. Then roll all 4's and all 1's are fails. All 3's, 1 or 2 fails.

Still slows down as you need Up to 6 mini piles for 2nd roll.

That is absolutely not true. Rolling 2D6 means each die has to be paired with its specific die. You can't remove all 6s as successes because getting a result of two 6s on a single 2D6 roll is only one success.

tneva82 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:


But they're not going to bring in D12's... So the work around is 2xD6, at which point like I said, you want speed? Paired Dice of different colours.

rolling 2 dice per save has got to be the worst solution to that..

Imagine needing to roll 30 saves(60 dice) one at a time... just... no

I think at that point it would just technically be a rerollable save. Roll 30 dice and reroll the ones that meet the threshold.

isnt getting a 4+ on two dice worse than needing a 4+ on one dice?

No he means if you roll 30 dice say fishing 6+ on 2d6 first remove all 6's as they pass, all 5's as 5+1 is 6. Then roll all 4's and all 1's are fails. All 3's, 1 or 2 fails.

Still slows down as you need Up to 6 mini piles for 2nd roll.

Yea htaht would not work, because scale it down.
say you are rolling 4 dice for 2 saves. You roll 6, 6 ,1, 1 whos to say the first 2d6 roll is 6,6 and the second is 1,1. Rather then 6,1 and a 6,1
If you are doing paired die you ahve to roll them all one at a time (pair at a time)

CadianSgtBob wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
No he means if you roll 30 dice say fishing 6+ on 2d6 first remove all 6's as they pass, all 5's as 5+1 is 6. Then roll all 4's and all 1's are fails. All 3's, 1 or 2 fails.

Still slows down as you need Up to 6 mini piles for 2nd roll.

That is absolutely not true. Rolling 2D6 means each die has to be paired with its specific die. You can't remove all 6s as successes because getting a result of two 6s on a single 2D6 roll is only one success.

Uuh. You could of course roll the 2nd dice for each 6 but 6 + anything is less than 6(target number)...how often?

You simply roll 2nd dice when needed. If 1st dice already gives you needed result it's irrelevant what the other dice is.

If there's 2 6's there's 2 rolls for both you can do of course to add for wasting time but doesn't change the odds.

First batch is simply 1st half of all 2d6 rolls. Then you determine what is needed for the 2nd roll.

Pick up 30 dice. Put them in piles of 1's, 2's, 3's etc. Roll 1 dice for each dice in each pool. You end up with 30 2d6 roll

tneva82 wrote:
You simply roll 2nd dice when needed.

Oh, I see. That's going to be tedious as hell to figure out and slow things down considerably. A game that needs more than 2-3 RNG outcomes decided at a time should only ever be using single dice. If you want more granularity than a D6 that means a D12, D20, etc.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:


But they're not going to bring in D12's... So the work around is 2xD6, at which point like I said, you want speed? Paired Dice of different colours.

rolling 2 dice per save has got to be the worst solution to that..

Imagine needing to roll 30 saves(60 dice) one at a time... just... no

I think at that point it would just technically be a rerollable save. Roll 30 dice and reroll the ones that meet the threshold.

isnt getting a 4+ on two dice worse than needing a 4+ on one dice?

No he means if you roll 30 dice say fishing 6+ on 2d6 first remove all 6's as they pass, all 5's as 5+1 is 6. Then roll all 4's and all 1's are fails. All 3's, 1 or 2 fails.

Still slows down as you need Up to 6 mini piles for 2nd roll.

Yea htaht would not work, because scale it down.
say you are rolling 4 dice for 2 saves. You roll 6, 6 ,1, 1 whos to say the first 2d6 roll is 6,6 and the second is 1,1. Rather then 6,1 and a 6,1
If you are doing paired die you ahve to roll them all one at a time (pair at a time)

Eeh no. The 4 dice arnn"t 2d6 of 2 rolls. It's 1st half of 4 rolls.

4 dice, 1, 1, 6, 6. Put into 2 piles(1's and 6's). Roll 2 dice, put each to 1's. Then roll 2 dice and pair each with 6's. You then have 4 pairs of 2d6.

The 4d6 are 4 separate rolls but only half. Not 2d6...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
You simply roll 2nd dice when needed.

Oh, I see. That's going to be tedious as hell to figure out and slow things down considerably. A game that needs more than 2-3 RNG outcomes decided at a time should only ever be using single dice. If you want more granularity than a D6 that means a D12, D20, etc.

Yep. Which is why 2d6 rolling isn't best of ideas for 40k. It was tedious on 2nd ed and that was when 30 models was big army and no 20 shot weapons.(been there, done that. 2nd ed terminators had 3+ save on 2d6. Have fun with mob of orks shooting at them>

tneva82 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:


But they're not going to bring in D12's... So the work around is 2xD6, at which point like I said, you want speed? Paired Dice of different colours.

rolling 2 dice per save has got to be the worst solution to that..

Imagine needing to roll 30 saves(60 dice) one at a time... just... no

I think at that point it would just technically be a rerollable save. Roll 30 dice and reroll the ones that meet the threshold.

isnt getting a 4+ on two dice worse than needing a 4+ on one dice?

No he means if you roll 30 dice say fishing 6+ on 2d6 first remove all 6's as they pass, all 5's as 5+1 is 6. Then roll all 4's and all 1's are fails. All 3's, 1 or 2 fails.

Still slows down as you need Up to 6 mini piles for 2nd roll.

Yea htaht would not work, because scale it down.
say you are rolling 4 dice for 2 saves. You roll 6, 6 ,1, 1 whos to say the first 2d6 roll is 6,6 and the second is 1,1. Rather then 6,1 and a 6,1
If you are doing paired die you ahve to roll them all one at a time (pair at a time)

Eeh no. The 4 dice arnn"t 2d6 of 2 rolls. It's 1st half of 4 rolls.

4 dice, 1, 1, 6, 6. Put into 2 piles(1's and 6's). Roll 2 dice, put each to 1's. Then roll 2 dice and pair each with 6's. You then have 4 pairs of 2d6.

The 4d6 are 4 separate rolls but only half. Not 2d6...

Ohhhh ok, yeah that works then, you are rolling the first half of every single roll at once. uhhhhhh that i think would work.